Print
See related documents
Resolution 2252 (2019)
Sergei Magnitsky and beyond – fighting impunity by targeted sanctions
1. The Parliamentary Assembly reaffirms
its commitment to the fight against impunity of perpetrators of serious
human rights violations and against corruption as a threat to the
rule of law.
2. It recalls its Resolution
1966 (2014) on refusing impunity for the killers of Sergei
Magnitsky, urging the competent Russian authorities to fully investigate
the circumstances and background of the death in pretrial detention
of Sergei Magnitsky and to hold the perpetrators to account. Mr Magnitsky
had denounced a large-scale fraud against the Russian State budget
by criminals benefiting from the collusion of corrupt officials. Resolution 1966 (2014),
adopted in January 2014, envisaged targeted sanctions, such as visa
bans and asset freezes, against the individuals involved in this
crime and its cover-up, as a means of last resort.
3. At the end of 2014, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human
Rights took the view that the Russian Federation had not made any
progress in the implementation of the Assembly’s resolution. Instead
of holding to account the perpetrators of the crimes committed against
Mr Magnitsky and disclosed by him, the Russian authorities harassed
Mr Magnitsky’s mother, his widow and his former client, Mr William
Browder. In January 2015, the President of the Assembly therefore
transmitted Resolution
1966 (2014) to all national delegations for follow-up
by the competent authorities.
4. Since then, the Russian authorities have still not made any
progress in prosecuting the perpetrators and beneficiaries of the
crime against Sergei Magnitsky, despite his family’s active engagement
in the proceedings. All criminal cases against the officials involved
in Mr Magnitsky’s ill-treatment and killing have been closed; some
of these officials were publicly commended by senior representatives
of the State, and others received promotions.
5. The Assembly further notes that Mr Magnitsky’s former client,
Mr William Browder, who is leading a worldwide campaign against
impunity, continues to be harassed and persecuted by the Russian
authorities, including by repeated abusive recourse to Interpol’s
Red Notice and diffusion procedures. The Assembly notes with regret
that, notwithstanding its Resolution
2161 (2017) “Abusive recourse to the Interpol system:
the need for more stringent legal safeguards”, Russia again attempted,
in January 2019, to misuse Interpol’s procedures against Mr Browder.
6. Meanwhile, several member and observer States (including Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States)
have adopted legislative and other instruments to enable their governments
to impose targeted sanctions on perpetrators and beneficiaries of
serious human rights violations.
7. The Assembly welcomes the fact that the application of the
most recent instruments of this type (adopted in the United States,
Canada and the United Kingdom) is not limited to persons from particular
countries, or found to be involved in particular crimes, such as
the killing of Sergei Magnitsky. They potentially cover any and
all perpetrators of serious human rights violations enjoying impunity
in their own countries.
8. The Assembly also warmly welcomes the initiative by the Netherlands
and others in the Council of the European Union to enact a legal
instrument allowing for targeted sanctions to be applied to perpetrators
of human rights violations without geographical limitations. It
calls on the Council of the European Union to include a reference,
in the title of this instrument, to Sergei Magnitsky, whose name
stands for all the brave people in numerous countries who have lost
their lives fighting against corruption and upholding human rights
and the rule of law.
9. The United Kingdom’s Criminal Finances Act 2017 defines “gross
human rights abuse or violation” as cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment of a person who has sought to expose illegal
activity carried out by a public official or a person acting in
an official capacity, or to defend or promote human rights and fundamental
freedoms, when such treatment is carried out by a public official
or a person acting in an official capacity or at the instigation
or with the consent of such an official. Similar definitions are
included in the United States and Canadian Magnitsky Acts.
10. The Assembly welcomes the fact that the Parliament of Georgia
has recently adopted a resolution which establishes a sanctions
list of perpetrators of serious human rights violations and persons
responsible for covering them up on Georgian territory that is currently
not under the effective control of the Georgian authorities (the
“Otkhozoria-Tatunashvili list”), and supports the measures proposed
in the European Parliament resolution on Georgian occupied territories
ten years after the Russian invasion (2018/2741(RSP).
11. The Assembly considers targeted (“smart”) sanctions against
individuals and affiliated companies to be preferable to general
economic or other sanctions against entire countries:
11.1. countries adopting targeted
sanctions send a clear message that individual perpetrators of serious
human rights violations are not welcome on their territory and that
they will not aid and abet such perpetrators in committing their
reprehensible actions by allowing them to use their financial institutions or
letting them enjoy the proceeds of their crime;
11.2. general sanctions, by contrast, hurt ordinary people the
most, and the ruling elite, who are responsible for the actions
giving rise to the sanctions, least of all.
12. The Assembly also recalls its Resolution 1597 (2008) on United
Nations Security Council and European Union blacklists, and insists
that the requirements of procedural fairness and transparency laid
down in this resolution also apply to those accused of serious human
rights violations other than terrorism.
13. The Assembly therefore calls on all member States of the Council
of Europe, the European Union and States having observer or any
other co-operative status with the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly
to:
13.1. consider enacting legislation
or other legal instruments enabling their executive, under the general
supervision of parliament, to impose targeted sanctions such as
visa bans and account freezes on individuals reasonably believed
to be personally responsible for serious human rights violations
for which they enjoy impunity on political grounds or owing to corrupt
practices;
13.2. ensure that such legislation or legal instruments lay
down a fair and transparent procedure for the imposition of targeted
sanctions, as indicated in respect of terrorist offences in Resolution 1597 (2008), in
particular by making sure that:
13.2.1. targeted persons
are informed of the imposition of sanctions and of the full and
specific reasons for this decision, and that they are given the
opportunity to respond within a reasonable time to the case made
in support of the sanctions;
13.2.2. the instance taking the decision on imposing sanctions
is independent of the body collecting information and proposing
to include a person in the sanctions list;
13.2.3. the initial decision to impose sanctions may be challenged
before a court of law or an appeals body that enjoys sufficient
independence and decision-making powers, including the power to
remove a targeted person from the list and to provide them with
adequate compensation in case of erroneous sanctions;
13.3. co-operate with one another in identifying appropriate
target persons, including the use of relevant European Union mechanisms
and by sharing information on persons included in sanctions lists and
the grounds for their reasonable belief that these persons are responsible
for serious human rights violations and benefit from impunity on
political grounds or owing to corrupt practices;
13.4. make use of the vast pool of information and evidence
on serious human rights violations whose perpetrators enjoy impunity
collected and documented by local, national and international non-governmental
human rights organisations, and, among others, the Natalya Estemirova
Documentation Centre in Oslo (Norway);
13.5. refrain from co-operating with any politically motivated
prosecutions relating to the Magnitsky case, such as the ones focusing
on his former client, Mr William Browder.
14. In addition, the Assembly encourages its member parliamentarians
to:
14.1. follow the precedent set
by fellow parliamentarians in a number of countries which have already taken
action in this field by seeking to persuade their governments to
adopt similar proposals and, where appropriate, to take legislative
initiatives themselves;
14.2. liaise closely with the Assembly on any such initiatives
they propose or have taken and seek relevant advice and assistance
from the Assembly if needed.